State of the Union Address…

Hahaha, once again the President takes the time to bash communism. :wink:

Ummm…. too bad.

I thought Mr. President gave a very dignified and very eloquent speech. There are a few numbers I do not agree with his domestic agenda, like his Medicare Proposal, and the amount of spending he wants to incur, even during a recovery from a recession. I was hoping that our President would spend a little more time of environmental rights, but I understand it takes a backseat with our current affairs. The second half of his speech was much more somber with the war on terror and the current situation of Iraq and North Korea. Overall, a very excellent job, and I would like to see how well he follows through his statements.

PS: The President still looks so cute. ^_~

i missed it but skimmed thru it on aol- seemed cool. pressing forward is good. I’m not big on giving more money away either (medicade) but seniors deserve to be taken car of. many of them fought with real issues. besides the baby boomers are getting old. if he wants to maintain office he has to do what they want.

I never doubt that our seniors should not be taken of, which they should, but it will be hard to squeeze 400 (?) Billion out of the economy.

Good: increasing money to health care
Ridiculous: Reaganonomic claims that by decreasing spending he will spur the economy and create jobs. He actually said that in the same sentance. Most of you were probably only relatively sentient beings during previous Bush and Clinton times, so you might not know that these economics do not work - any economist on the planet will easily prove the opposite.

Isn’t he the gov. of your state? :lol:

Gonna go out on a limb adn say D:S didn’t vote for him.

Good: Hydro-Cars. Aids relief. Democratic Palestinian State. Ending Dividend Tax.

Bad: Iraq (Same old crap we’ve heard for a month), War on Terror (Same crap we’ve heard for 6 months).

Heard Gov. Locke’s approval rating in Washington (state of) is about 30% and that he cut Medicaid (bad, bad Democrat! :wink: ). Was he on the ‘Universal healthcare for all residents of WA’ bandwagon?

Devi, baby! The Prime Directive is is ‘Don’t stand for the other sides guy.’

Didja see the one lone Rep, stuck on the Dem side, stand up every time on cue, with the other Reps? (good, good Republican! :wink: )

How about Dem. House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (sp?) laughing, during a close up, when Bush was talking taxes? Bad form.

And the best was when Sen. John McCain pulled his pants up when he stood to applaud Bush about 2/3s of the way through the speech.

Cystic, see a doctor! I attended a lecture(actually, a weekend seminar in 1997) by Milton Friedman (the most widely respected economist of the last 30 years) in which he explained how Reaganomics worked better than planned. He introduced it by explaining how JFK’s 1963 tax cuts worked and how Reagan built on that example. He went further to predict a financial down turn at the end of the Clinton Administration, but that it would occur no later than 2 years into the next administration. According to current numbers the downturn began in late 1998 and was covered by the Clinton administration until deciphered by the Bush admin.

But I understand how THE OTHER SIDE ALWAYS LIES(to all you Demublicans and Repocrats!)

DOESN’T FUNDING HYDROPOWERED CARS RESEARCH TAKE AWAY SOME DEMOCRAT (or is it liberal?) LINES? “No War For Oil!” and “Bush is Lining His Oilcat Friends/Family Pockets?”

Yanny, Isn’t Bush following UN suggestions, but adding teeth, which the UN seems reluctant to show or use? That ‘same ol rcap’ is the UN’s current findings… A violation of the agreement Iraq and the UN had… No smoking gun is needed. Inspectors verify… they do not have to uncover 30,000 missing nerve gas delivery projectiles that the Iraqi’s say they destroyed (but had to verify, but cannot). Iraq has violated over 114 points of the surrender agreement from Persian Gulf War I.
Didn’t Bush say, in his previous SOU speech or the speech he gave Sept. 14, 2001, that this war would take ten years or more, and that it would be like no other war? You sound like a liberal… “gimme facts, gimme money, gimme peace!” They all go together. find one and the others are soon to follow.

Didn’t the Democrat reponse accuse Bush of going it alone? I seem to recall that Great Britain & Australia (who have both had terrrorist troubles[Indonesia was kinda close(I have close Netfriends down under)]), Hungary & Poland (which understand the value of freedom exported to them by Pres. Reagan, PM Thatcher and the current Pope, as well as through the work of Mr. Walesa[sp?]), and various other countries in the Middle East and around the world.
Who needs a chicken pucky Germany(whose leader is unpopular in the poles - so what’s he gonna do next?) or a jump on the band wagon France? If I remember my facts these to has been countries have spent an average of 1% of their GNPs for defence for the last 57 years. The US covered their sases while they recovered and became ungrateful.

anny, Isn’t Bush following UN suggestions, but adding teeth, which the UN seems reluctant to show or use? That ‘same ol rcap’ is the UN’s current findings… A violation of the agreement Iraq and the UN had… No smoking gun is needed. Inspectors verify… they do not have to uncover 30,000 missing nerve gas delivery projectiles that the Iraqi’s say they destroyed (but had to verify, but cannot). Iraq has violated over 114 points of the surrender agreement from Persian Gulf War I.

According to Time Magazine (had a big story on this a few weeks back) Back in August, Bush was ready to declare war on Iraq without consulting the UN. He was inches away from it when Colin Powell stopped him, sat him down, and explained to him the diplomatic consequences of going it alone. Now, because of Powell, we at least have a handful of countries to back us up.

Bush completely lied about “30,000 prohibited missles, we found 16”. The Missles they found were not prohibited. They were conventional, short range, military weapons, completely allowed to Iraq. They are in effect, just artillery.

Didn’t Bush say, in his previous SOU speech or the speech he gave Sept. 14, 2001, that this war would take ten years or more, and that it would be like no other war? You sound like a liberal… “gimme facts, gimme money, gimme peace!” They all go together. find one and the others are soon to follow.

I could care less about what Bush says. The American people, whom he serves, are entiltled to know what is going on. I do not trust Bush, only a fool would trust him. I want to know where our soldiers are (after they are out of danger of course), where the money is being spent (So we don’t have a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war, selling weapons to both sides), and I damn well want peace. You should be a criminal if you enjoy a war.

Heard Gov. Locke’s approval rating in Washington (state of) is about 30% and that he cut Medicaid (bad, bad Democrat! ).

Wow, that’s even worst than our governor… :-?

! I attended a lecture(actually, a weekend seminar in 1997) by Milton Friedman (the most widely respected economist of the last 30 years) in which he explained how Reaganomics worked better than planned.

You met Milton Friedman? Lucky you. :wink: What is he, 91 now?

According to current numbers the downturn began in late 1998 and was covered by the Clinton administration until deciphered by the Bush admin.

Yes, the economic downturn began while Clinton was still in office.

Bad speech:

Domestic issues: He said what people wanted to hear, but his real budget shows different numbers. Unfortunately, most Americans are too lazy or stupid to read he actual plan and take him at his word.

Iraq: This is the same tired crap we have been hearing all year, and it still stinks. He failed to answer some key questions in my mind:

1. Why only Iraq? There are lots of dictatorships in the world trying to get weapons of mass destruction.

2. Why aren’t we still trying to capture Osama Bin Laden? Didn’t he promise to bring him to justice? He’s not trying very hard.

3. What roles did key members of the US government play in bring Saddam to power and maintaining it through the inhumane means listed in Bush’s speech. In particular, how about full disclosure of the activities of Donald Rumsfield with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. If we are truly a nation that stands for freedom and liberty, then we should have nothing to hide right?

I also did not like the lies in his speech.
1. He talked about homeland security, but his office is blocking funding of the bill that was passed by the Republican congress.
2. He accused Iraq of torture, which I am sure they do, but he ignored the reports that Al queda prisoners in US custody are being “shared” with allies willing to perform “interrogation methods” the the U.S. considers torture.
3. The UN team said that the Aluminum tubes they found were not the kind needed to purify Uranium, but Bush said they were.

Lastly, I despise politicians that invoke the name of God to back their entirely human agendas. Bush needs to read the ten commandments. “Thou shaly not take the name of Lord your God in vain.” Bush, presumed to speak for God, and that God supports his War on Iraq. Very bad form. Much worse than all the “God Bless America” signs on places of business after 9/11.

A few things,

Hitlerism isn’t a word.

Osama is probably dead. There is no proof that he is alive. That tape was declared “probably a fake” by some institute.

Yanny, artillery rockets for delivering sarin

Locke got elected because his family is pretty (which says a lot about our state, we can only feel slightly better than California and New Jersey)

When we annex Canada and combine RI and CT into one state we should make Canda into a state called “New Washington”

About the DNC rebuttal, this one pundit said it best, “one of the worst buttals I have ever seen”

Those pipes he mentioned are probably for rockets delivering nerve gas, not for enriching plutonium for nukes.

Locke got elected because his family is pretty (which says a lot about our state, we can only feel slightly better than California and New Jersey)

At least our governor looks like a governor… when I saw him speak he seemed a little too giddy (nervous - hyperactive - whatever :-?) and unsure about himself. Also, I don’t want to hear about the life history of the man, I wanted to know about counterpoints. And does he wear a toupee? Me thinks the Demi’s would’ve been better with Gray Davis even. At least he has a much better ability to lie.

@yourbuttocks:

When we annex Canada and combine RI and CT into one state we should make Canda into a state called “New Washington”

can’t wait until this happens… no more canadians :lol: j/k j/k

“When we annex Canada and combine RI and CT into one state we should make Canda into a state called “New Washington””

Should not Canada belong to the Canadians? :( Just as long as they are free to choose. :)